Five years of Obama

[Erand7899]

Financial crisis of 2007?08 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuff said

George W Bush left this country in nearn total ruin, and you expect Obama to fully rehabilitate it in in 5 years: a completely unreasonable expectation. He has rebuilt some of it and laid the groundwork for more. He will be recognized by presidential historians as a good president, far, far supperior to GW Bush. All your belittling of Obama is just partisanship. Nothing more.

No, Bush did not leave this country in near total ruin, or anything even close to that dumb scenerio. When Bush left office, the financial meltdown had been averted, and we faced a deep recession. Not the first time, and it will definitely not be the last time. Especially with government increasingly meddling in the economy.

For five years now, the economy has been bouncing along the bottom, just like it did in the Great Depression. And, for the very same reason. Bad government policy that hinges on the idea that government can spend its way out of a recession. But, government does not have enough money and cannot borrow enough money to buy its way out of a recession.

Government spreads money around and allieviates some of the misery for some of the people, but that is all that it does. The economy will fix itself, if government leaves it alone, and lets it correct the allocation of resources. The best that government can do to help, is to facilitate a more favorable economic environment through tax cuts and reduced regulation.

 

[Redfish]

Bush had 8 years to destroy the economy.

It generally takes longer to build than destroy.

The World Trade center still isn't finished.

Another thing destroyed on Bush's watch.

True, but Bush only had 6 and didn't. It only took the Democrat controlled Congress 2 years to inflate a bubble then break it. One would think with an economy in such poor shape at the start Obama had all the potential to really look good. History has shown that the bigger the recession the quicker and bigger the recovery, UNTIL OBAMA.

After 2006 you can lay most blame on those who are suppose to be our representatives and those people were Democrats.

Bush cut taxes, twice. Cut interest rates to zero. Cut funding to the IRS and SEC.

And he didn't do anything after the Arthur Anderson/ENRON meltdown, after he had a very good indication that the financial industry was playing hard and fast with the rules.

This was all the fault of conservatives and republicans.

Every single crisis.

OK, lets see if I get what you and the other lefties are saying-------you are saying that because Bush fucked some stuff up its OK for obama to continue the fuck ups and make them into bigger fuck ups-----------is that it?

Obama has not fixed shit, everything he has done has made things worse.

your attempts at moral equivalency fail every time, because even if Bush was as bad as you say, Obama is worse. Much worse.

 

[Redfish]

2008 vs today

full time workers 118M 117M
workforce participation 65.9% 62.8%
home ownership 67.5% 65.0%
median income $ 53,664 $51,017
poverty 13.2% 15.0%
people on food stamps 28.2M 47.6M
debt to GDP ratio 64.8% 101.6%

and the gap between rich and poor is larger than ever and the world is laughing at our incompetent president-----------way to go libs, you elected him twice. the mess belongs to you.

And you said the wealth gap is made up by liberals

I never said that, its real and it has gotten larger under obozo and his marxist ideas. You do realize that under a socialist regime, all of the power and all of the money resides with a very small group of super elites and everyone else is a serf ? Do you have any idea what you silly left wing fucks are asking for?

 

[rightwinger]

Financial crisis of 2007?08 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuff said

George W Bush left this country in nearn total ruin, and you expect Obama to fully rehabilitate it in in 5 years: a completely unreasonable expectation. He has rebuilt some of it and laid the groundwork for more. He will be recognized by presidential historians as a good president, far, far supperior to GW Bush. All your belittling of Obama is just partisanship. Nothing more.

No, Bush did not leave this country in near total ruin, or anything even close to that dumb scenerio. When Bush left office, the financial meltdown had been averted, and we faced a deep recession. Not the first time, and it will definitely not be the last time. Especially with government increasingly meddling in the economy.

For five years now, the economy has been bouncing along the bottom, just like it did in the Great Depression. And, for the very same reason. Bad government policy that hinges on the idea that government can spend its way out of a recession. But, government does not have enough money and cannot borrow enough money to buy its way out of a recession.

Government spreads money around and allieviates some of the misery for some of the people, but that is all that it does. The economy will fix itself, if government leaves it alone, and lets it correct the allocation of resources. The best that government can do to help, is to facilitate a more favorable economic environment through tax cuts and reduced regulation.

 

[Redfish]

But...but..income inequality...but..but..Obama said fairness..and change...and hope...

and the media put his lies out and the masses bought into them. It is a sad commentary on the intellect of many americans.

and the gap between rich and poor is larger than ever and the world is laughing at our incompetent president-----------way to go libs, you elected him twice. the mess belongs to you.

Which one is it?

different topics----------INCOME and WEALTH are not the same thing. Wealth disparity has gotten larger under obama, income disparity is hard to measure with so many people unemployed or on welfare.

 

[Redfish]

George W Bush left this country in nearn total ruin, and you expect Obama to fully rehabilitate it in in 5 years: a completely unreasonable expectation. He has rebuilt some of it and laid the groundwork for more. He will be recognized by presidential historians as a good president, far, far supperior to GW Bush. All your belittling of Obama is just partisanship. Nothing more.

No, Bush did not leave this country in near total ruin, or anything even close to that dumb scenerio. When Bush left office, the financial meltdown had been averted, and we faced a deep recession. Not the first time, and it will definitely not be the last time. Especially with government increasingly meddling in the economy.

For five years now, the economy has been bouncing along the bottom, just like it did in the Great Depression. And, for the very same reason. Bad government policy that hinges on the idea that government can spend its way out of a recession. But, government does not have enough money and cannot borrow enough money to buy its way out of a recession.

Government spreads money around and allieviates some of the misery for some of the people, but that is all that it does. The economy will fix itself, if government leaves it alone, and lets it correct the allocation of resources. The best that government can do to help, is to facilitate a more favorable economic environment through tax cuts and reduced regulation.

thanks, that is a very good description or you, sallow, and most of your left wing buddies.

 

[rightwinger]

No, Bush did not leave this country in near total ruin, or anything even close to that dumb scenerio. When Bush left office, the financial meltdown had been averted, and we faced a deep recession. Not the first time, and it will definitely not be the last time. Especially with government increasingly meddling in the economy.

For five years now, the economy has been bouncing along the bottom, just like it did in the Great Depression. And, for the very same reason. Bad government policy that hinges on the idea that government can spend its way out of a recession. But, government does not have enough money and cannot borrow enough money to buy its way out of a recession.

Government spreads money around and allieviates some of the misery for some of the people, but that is all that it does. The economy will fix itself, if government leaves it alone, and lets it correct the allocation of resources. The best that government can do to help, is to facilitate a more favorable economic environment through tax cuts and reduced regulation.

thanks, that is a very good description or you, sallow, and most of your left wing buddies.

I know you are....but what am I?

 

[ClosedCaption]

and the media put his lies out and the masses bought into them. It is a sad commentary on the intellect of many americans.

and the gap between rich and poor is larger than ever and the world is laughing at our incompetent president-----------way to go libs, you elected him twice. the mess belongs to you.

Which one is it?

different topics----------INCOME and WEALTH are not the same thing. Wealth disparity has gotten larger under obama, income disparity is hard to measure with so many people unemployed or on welfare.

Howd that happen with such a liberal socialist president?

 

[Redfish]

Which one is it?

different topics----------INCOME and WEALTH are not the same thing. Wealth disparity has gotten larger under obama, income disparity is hard to measure with so many people unemployed or on welfare.

Howd that happen with such a liberal socialist president?

your ignorance of history is quite evident. when liberals and socialists take control wealth becomes concentrated in a very small group of elites. Who do you think controls the wealth in China and Russia and Cuba? Not the people.

careful what you wish for, you might get it.

socialists preach equality but what they deliver is something quite different.

 

[Redfish]

thanks, that is a very good description or you, sallow, and most of your left wing buddies.

I know you are....but what am I?

What are you? Really dumb.

 

[KNB]

different topics----------INCOME and WEALTH are not the same thing. Wealth disparity has gotten larger under obama, income disparity is hard to measure with so many people unemployed or on welfare.

Howd that happen with such a liberal socialist president?

your ignorance of history is quite evident. when liberals and socialists take control wealth becomes concentrated in a very small group of elites. Who do you think controls the wealth in China and Russia and Cuba? Not the people.

careful what you wish for, you might get it.

socialists preach equality but what they deliver is something quite different.

Please explain Reaganomics.

 

[Redfish]

Howd that happen with such a liberal socialist president?

your ignorance of history is quite evident. when liberals and socialists take control wealth becomes concentrated in a very small group of elites. Who do you think controls the wealth in China and Russia and Cuba? Not the people.

careful what you wish for, you might get it.

socialists preach equality but what they deliver is something quite different.

Please explain Reaganomics.

the lower and middle classes did very well during the reagan years, so did the upper middle and upper classes. Everyone does well when the economy is growing.

When the economy sucks, like now, only the rich do well because they can avoid the impacts that the rest of us cannot.

 

[Erand7899]

George W Bush left this country in nearn total ruin, and you expect Obama to fully rehabilitate it in in 5 years: a completely unreasonable expectation. He has rebuilt some of it and laid the groundwork for more. He will be recognized by presidential historians as a good president, far, far supperior to GW Bush. All your belittling of Obama is just partisanship. Nothing more.

No, Bush did not leave this country in near total ruin, or anything even close to that dumb scenerio. When Bush left office, the financial meltdown had been averted, and we faced a deep recession. Not the first time, and it will definitely not be the last time. Especially with government increasingly meddling in the economy.

For five years now, the economy has been bouncing along the bottom, just like it did in the Great Depression. And, for the very same reason. Bad government policy that hinges on the idea that government can spend its way out of a recession. But, government does not have enough money and cannot borrow enough money to buy its way out of a recession.

Government spreads money around and allieviates some of the misery for some of the people, but that is all that it does. The economy will fix itself, if government leaves it alone, and lets it correct the allocation of resources. The best that government can do to help, is to facilitate a more favorable economic environment through tax cuts and reduced regulation.

Kind of depends on who is delusional, and who is not. Your remarks do not create any confidence that you live in anything but a fantasy world of your own creation.

 

[jknowgood]

Who was in charge of both houses at the end of clintons presidency?

 

[Erand7899]

Howd that happen with such a liberal socialist president?

your ignorance of history is quite evident. when liberals and socialists take control wealth becomes concentrated in a very small group of elites. Who do you think controls the wealth in China and Russia and Cuba? Not the people.

careful what you wish for, you might get it.

socialists preach equality but what they deliver is something quite different.

Please explain Reaganomics.

Reaganomics is very simple. Government can improve the economic environment by making it more enticing for the people who have money, to invest that money in the economy. That investment creates jobs, and jobs create opportunity for everyone in the economy. Government has only two real means of improving the economic environment, and those are tax cuts and/or regulatory reform.

Markets are self correcting, and the economy will fix itself over time. Tax cuts and regulatory reform just speeds things up a bit.

 

[KNB]

Since the arrival of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, it has become a matter of conservative orthodoxy that tax cuts for the rich will, inevitably, lead to economic prosperity. So ingrained is this philosophy that it seems as if it has been a bulwark of GOP ideology since time began—yet it was not always this way.
The Numbers Don't Lie-Why Lowering Taxes For The Rich No Longer Works To Grow The Economy - Forbes

So explain Reaganomics.

 

[rightwinger]

thanks, that is a very good description or you, sallow, and most of your left wing buddies.

I know you are....but what am I?

What are you? Really dumb.

I know you are....but what am I?

 

[jknowgood]

thanks, that is a very good description or you, sallow, and most of your left wing buddies.

I know you are....but what am I?

What are you? Really dumb.

What do you expect from one of the last obama supporters? Right history will not be kind to people like yourself.

 

[Caroljo]

George W Bush left this country in nearn total ruin, and you expect Obama to fully rehabilitate it in in 5 years: a completely unreasonable expectation. He has rebuilt some of it and laid the groundwork for more. He will be recognized by presidential historians as a good president, far, far supperior to GW Bush. All your belittling of Obama is just partisanship. Nothing more.

No, Bush did not leave this country in near total ruin, or anything even close to that dumb scenerio. When Bush left office, the financial meltdown had been averted, and we faced a deep recession. Not the first time, and it will definitely not be the last time. Especially with government increasingly meddling in the economy.

For five years now, the economy has been bouncing along the bottom, just like it did in the Great Depression. And, for the very same reason. Bad government policy that hinges on the idea that government can spend its way out of a recession. But, government does not have enough money and cannot borrow enough money to buy its way out of a recession.

Government spreads money around and allieviates some of the misery for some of the people, but that is all that it does. The economy will fix itself, if government leaves it alone, and lets it correct the allocation of resources. The best that government can do to help, is to facilitate a more favorable economic environment through tax cuts and reduced regulation.

Gosh....good catch, sounds just like the democrats I know!

 

[ClosedCaption]

different topics----------INCOME and WEALTH are not the same thing. Wealth disparity has gotten larger under obama, income disparity is hard to measure with so many people unemployed or on welfare.

Howd that happen with such a liberal socialist president?

your ignorance of history is quite evident. when liberals and socialists take control wealth becomes concentrated in a very small group of elites. Who do you think controls the wealth in China and Russia and Cuba? Not the people.

careful what you wish for, you might get it.

socialists preach equality but what they deliver is something quite different.

If thats true then why do you keep saying Obama is taking from the rich and giving it to the poor?

You mean your entire position is undermined by your other position?